Skip to content
2018
Volume 51, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216

Abstract

Many teachers still struggle to find a coherent and meaningful framework for incorporating new literacies into their instruction. This case study examines the teaching and learning that took place in a New and Multimodal Literacies class for preservice English teachers to understand how the ideas of connected learning are generative yet challenging as educators seek to create transformative, technology-integrated, and equity-oriented literacy learning experiences for students. Findings suggest that when teachers explore technological tools with connection in mind, they can develop instructional experiences that forefront student interests and critical literacy learning. The study offers a vision of connected teaching to guide digital literacy teacher education into the future.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930076
2019-04-01
2024-03-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Avila J. Pandya J. (Eds.) 2012) Critical digital literacies as social praxis: Intersections and challenges. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker-Doyle K. (2017) Transformative teachers: Teacher leadership and learning in a connected world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach K. (1999) Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. Review of Research in Education, 24, 101–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beach R. (2014) Digital/media literacies in a media literacy and a digital writing methods course. InBrass J. Webb A. (Eds.) Reclaiming English language arts methods courses: Critical issues and challenges for teacher educators in top-down times (pp.54–69). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beach R. Anson C. Breuch L. Reynolds T. (2014) Understanding and creating digital texts: An activity-based approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bobbitt P. (2016, March 9 Borders in a borderless world. Stratfor Worldview. Retrieved fromhttps://worldview.stratfor.com/article/borders-borderless-world
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown W. (2015) Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burnett C. (2009) Personal digital literacies versus classroom literacies: Investigating pre-service teachers’ digital lives in and beyond the classroom. InCarrington V. Robinson M. (Eds.) Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices (pp.115–129). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Castells M. (2013) The impact of the internet on society: A global perspective. Change: 19 key essays on how the internet is changing our lives. Madrid: BBVA Retrieved fromhttps://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/?utm_source=views&utm_medium=article07&utm_content=Internet-society
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Caughlan S. Pasternak D. Hallman H. Renzi R. Rush L. Frisby M. (2017) How English language arts teachers are prepared for 21st century classrooms: Results of a national study. English Education, 49(3), 265–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Coiro J. Knobel M. Lankshear C. Lue D. (Eds.) 2012) Handbook of research on new literacies. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cole M. (1996) Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cole M. Engeström Y. (1993) A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. InSalomon G. (Ed.) Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp.1–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Commission on Digital Literacy in Teacher Education (D-LITE) (2018) Beliefs for integrating technology into the English Language Arts classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Retrieved fromhttp://www2.ncte.org/statement/beliefs-technology-preparation-english-teachers/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cuban L. (2013) Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. D’Agata J. Fingal J. (2012) The lifespan of a fact. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Enyedy N. (2014) Personalized instruction: New interest, old rhetoric, limited results, and the need for a new direction for computer-mediated learning. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center Retrieved fromhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-personalized-instruction.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat (pp.1177 (2015–2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Garcia A. (Ed.) 2014) Teaching in the connected learning classroom. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Glaser B. (1965) The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Griffin P. McGaw B. Care E. (Eds.) 2011) Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. (2012 ed.). New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gutierrez K. D. (2008) Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gutierrez K. Stone L. (2000) Synchronic and diachronic dimensions of social practice. InLee C. Smagorinsky P. (Eds.) Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp.150–164). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Harvey D. (2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, 21–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Herold B. (2016, February 5 Technology in education: An overview. Education Week. Retrieved fromhttps://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hicks T. (2013) Crafting digital writing: Composing texts across media and genres. New York: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hursh D. (2007) Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hutchison A. Reinking D. (2011) Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ito M. Gutierrez K. Livingstone S. Penuel B. Rhodes J. Salen … & Watkins S.C. (2013) Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ito M. Soep E. Kligler-Vilenchik N. Shresthova S. Gamber-Thompson L. Zimmerman A. (2015) Learning connected civics: Narratives, practices, infrastructure. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(1), 10–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jenkins H. (2006) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jenkins H. (2013) Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kajder S. (2010) Adolescents and digital literacies: Learning alongside our students. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kincheloe J. McLaren P. (1994) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. InDenzin N. K. Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp.138–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirkland D. (2009) Researching and teaching English in the digital dimension. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(1), 8–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Koehler M. Mishra P. (2009) What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lankshear C. Knobel M. (2003) New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lave J. (1988) Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Leontiev A. (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality Hall M. Trans Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Mercer J. (2007) The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mirra N. (2015, September 24 My exploration of connected learning as a framework for teacher education. DML Central. Retrieved fromhttp://dmlcentral.net/my-exploration-of-connected-learning-as-a-framework-for-teacher-education/
    [Google Scholar]
  42. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2012) Leading assessment into the future. Washington, DC Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/naep_highlights_16may2012_view.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  43. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: The Commission: [Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor].
    [Google Scholar]
  44. National Governors Association (2010) Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies. Washington, DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 2002
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2008) 21st century skills map—English. Washington, DC Retrieved fromwww.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_english_map.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2016) Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC Retrieved fromhttp://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pasternak D. L. (2007) Is technology used as practice? A survey analysis of preservice English teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rankine C. (2014) Citizen: An American lyric. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Reich J. Ito M. (2017) From good intentions to real outcomes: Equity by design in learning technologies. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rogers J. Franke M. Yun J. E. Ishimoto M. Diera C. Geller R. Berryman A. Brenes T. (2017) Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in America’s high schools. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rogoff B. (2003) The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Strauss A. Corbin J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Swenson J. Rozema R. Young C. A. McGrail E. Whitin P. (2005) Beliefs about technology and the preparation of English teachers: Beginning the conversation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3/4), 210–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Trilling B. Fadel C. (2012) 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. US Department of Education (2016) Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation: Policy brief. Washington, DC Retrieved fromhttps://tech.ed.gov/files/2016/12/Ed-Tech-in-Teacher-Preparation-Brief.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. US Department of Education (2017) Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology Retrieved fromhttps://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Venkatesh V. Davis F. (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vygotsky L. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930076
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee201930076
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error